There was no official statement that the release cycle was permanently
How do you propose to solve that?. Do press releases?
>Fedora is not solely focussed on the desktop.
Sure. But a defined long term release cycle has a lot of benefits --
look at Gnome.
Red Hat developers have been involved in the original decision to move
over to a time based release structure. However there are differences
between GNOME and FedoraGNOME is typically not consumed by users
directly. . They can afford to do fixes in a .1 release. If you look at
Fedora, there is a rough time based release but it is not rigid to
accomodate various changes that come up in every development cycle.
No -- but if we sync up to the same schedule maybe gcc will sync to
too. Or xorg, kde. Or maybe even the kernel (okay, that's unlikely).
You are talking about a scenario which is highly unlikely on the whole.
It simply doesnt make any sense for many projects to switch into a six
month release cycle.
Sure. But the reason why I replied to your initial mail in this
was that there was a lack of a defined statement about the Fedora
release cycle. And that's more a marketing problem afaics.
I dont consider that as a documentation problem as such. One attempt to
fix it is the weekly reports.
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers